A few words about...™ Patton -- in Blu-Ray

Robert Harris · 05-28-2008, 09:47 PM

deleted

Rachael B · 05-28-2008, 10:18 PM

I choose this film to be my BD of the week, next week. Hot dam I like George C. Scott as a general. His Patton is almost as good as his General Turgeson bit...and there's good ole Karl Malden. He's a fine General too.

Robert are you implying that some DNR has been applied. I must admit I didn't understand all the term you used....like the "Red" and "Dalsa". You lost me there.

Well, it sounds like the film was reincarnated as good data.

DavidJ · 05-28-2008, 10:37 PM

I'm not sure how to respond to these comments. In some ways it is good news, but at the same time I'm disappointed that the film has been "scrubbed."

Although it is a different situation this is somewhat analogous to my recent theater going experiences. In Moore, Oklahoma there is a beautiful new theater with a brilliant sound system. To my ear, it is the best I've heard in the state and the best I've heard in years. It also has a wonderful digital projection system. It will be awesome for Wall-E later in the summer, but for movies originated on film I still prefer even mediocre film projection. Not that digital is bad. That is what we use in our home systems after all and it is quite nice, but it is not the same as projected film and that is one of the reasons I'll still go out to see films. I'm just perplexed as to why I have to choose between great sound and a more film like image.

And now I'm perplexed by Patton. Why can't we have the benefits of modern HD discs without sacrificing the look and feel of film? So I'm a bit disappointed. I'll still enjoy what will be the best presentation of this film that I've had the opportunity to see, but there'll be that nagging sensation that it could have been better or to me more authentic.

Douglas Monce · 05-28-2008, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rachael B

I choose this film to be my BD of the week, next week. Hot dam I like George C. Scott as a general. His Patton is almost as good as his General Turgeson bit...and there's good ole Karl Malden. He's a fine General too.

Robert are you implying that some DNR has been applied. I must admit I didn't understand all the term you used....like the "Red" and "Dalsa". You lost me there.

Well, it sounds like the film was reincarnated as good data.

Red and Dalsa are two HD cameras that are starting to be used by the film industry. Red being, I believe the first production ready 4k camera.

doug

DavidJ · 05-28-2008, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rachael B

I choose this film to be my BD of the week, next week. Hot dam I like George C. Scott as a general. His Patton is almost as good as his General Turgeson bit...and there's good ole Karl Malden. He's a fine General too.

Robert are you implying that some DNR has been applied. I must admit I didn't understand all the term you used....like the "Red" and "Dalsa". You lost me there.

Well, it sounds like the film was reincarnated as good data.

Rachael, both Dalsa and Red are wonderful digital cinema cameras. The Red One has a 4K imaging sensor. The Epic that Mr. Harris referenced is an upcoming model that will have a 5K sensor.

RED / Index

**HTF Ads**

Rachael B · 05-28-2008, 10:51 PM

Thanks for clearing me up 'bout the digital cameras guys!

MatthewA · 05-29-2008, 12:39 AM

Is it at all possible that with the way the film was photographed the grain was minimal to begin with? Maybe I'm a little naive on this, but in most of the 65mm-originating films I've seen on film, I noticed a very clear image with very little grain (at least to my eyes a couple of years ago; I now wear glasses). Patton wasn't one of them, but the recent reprints I saw of other Fox films from around the same period (The Sound of Music, Doctor Doolittle, Hello Dolly) seemed almost like looking out a window. Though they are different films shot and stored under different conditions.

How is the detail compared to other Blu-Rays of 65mm films you've seen, like 2001?

EnricoE · 05-29-2008, 01:07 AM

i wonder how a grain heavy film such as saving private ryan will look on blu-ray. i hope they wont abply any dnr on that one.

as for patton, i wont get it any time soon on br as i'm quite happy with the dvd. besides, you can't get every new release. then there is the note that a studio once again got their "make everything clean and slick" method out of the box doesn't convince me in getting it. they should finally stop doing that!!!

Douglas Monce · 05-29-2008, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatthewA

Is it at all possible that with the way the film was photographed the grain was minimal to begin with?

The grain should be finer in appearance that a 35mm film, but it should still be there. Also if enough DNR is used the image will start to lose high frequency detail along with grain. The whole thing starts to take on a plastic (best way I can describe it) like look.

Doug

Kris Z. · 05-29-2008, 04:00 AM

Thanks yet again. This is what I was afraid of after looking at the screenshots in the blu-ray.com review.

Sad really. We finally have a a home video format that can do the movies justice and retain much of the cinematic experience even on larger screens, and they throw it all out the window.

If people want the movies to 'pop' (what does this mean anyway?) they should go to the IMAX 3D viewings.

Robert Harris · 05-29-2008, 07:53 AM

As I presume that Patton was shot on Eastman 5254, it would have precisely the same grain structure as every other film shot on 5254.

Because it was shot on 65mm, the APPARENT grain seems finer because, when projected in 70mm, the image is being magnified only 40% that of 35mm.

And yes, a "plastic" look is a very good word. High frequency information in faces, fabrics, walls, etc. is gone.

There are ways around this.

Grain structure can be reduced without affecting the rest of the image, but at present I'm aware of only one facility with this capability -- Lowry -- which can also modify the grain structure without removing it totally, and without turning cinema to plastic.

RAH